OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: DocBook filename extension

>From: Steffen Maier <Steffen.Maier@studserv.uni-stuttgart.de>
>CC: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: DocBook filename extension
>Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:22:12 +0100
> > I use '*.xdbk'.  I don't understand why people use '*.xml', since
> > it's not just XML - you can be far more specific than that.  I
> > regard that as somewhat like naming files containing C code as
> > '*.txt', since they are technically text files (well yeah... but
> > OF COURSE they're text files!).  Maybe one reason I'm so keen to
> > distinguish XML DocBook from other types of XML files is that I
> > have pattern rules, in my makefiles, for processing them, as well
> > as files of other XML-based formats.
>be noted in the file's suffix.  That's why I like the idea of
>multiple suffixes like .docbook.xml if there is need to express the
>certain kind of markup language that is used inside an xml document
>in the document's filename (as Jirka already pointed out it's all
>inside the document's prolog anyways).

Thanks to all who reminded me about DOCTYPE.  As I mentioned, I'm often 
approaching things from a UNIXy perspective (e.g. writing pattern rules in 
makefiles, etc.), which usually turns out to be a *good* thing.

What I still don't like about using the .xml extension is that perhaps 90% 
of file formats, in use, become XML-based, in the next decade.  Then, so 
many files would have .xml extensions (assuming that convention is followed) 
that the extension becomes virtually meaningless.  Furthermore, is many 
cases, a file's filename is the only piece of information you have, about 

>Specifying increasing detail from right to left through multiple
>suffixes allows you to process any xml document with generic xml
>processors, no matter what dtd (or not) it conforms to (even if this
>is not always meaningful).

This is a good point, and it's why I chose to use .xdbk.ent, for my docbook 
entities.  Sometimes, when they're just unstructured text, I use .ent.

>I think that's an important point when thinking about mime-types.
>Trying to follow RFC3023, I use the following mime-type
>declarations and file-suffixes (e.g. for apache):
>text/xml			xml xsl xhtml
>text/xml-external-parsed-entity	ent
>application/xml-dtd		dtd mod
># application/xslt+xml		xsl

Hmmm... I mostly follow this (except for .xml) but I believe strongly in 
using .xslt, for XSLT.  If I write XSLT to transform something into XSL-FO, 
then I'd consider using the extension .xsl.  But the output would likely be 
.xsl-fo (though I don't regard .fo as unreasonable).

> > What I'd like to know is what people use for external parsed
> > entity filename conventions.  I use '*.xdbk.ent', since they are
> > external parsed entities that tend to be fairly specific to XML
> > DocBook.

> > For external parameter entities, I generally use '*_xdbk.dtd',
> > since a DTD fragment is theoretically usable as a stand-alone
> > DTD (unlike external parsed entities, which don't have to meet
> > criteria as stringent as well-formed XML files), and are more
> > reusable from DTDs for another vocabulary, but tend to specific
> > to XML DocBook, in some way.  I regard external parameter
> > entities in much the same way as I view C header files - the
> > extension declares the format and usage model, but not the
> > usage semantics.
>Personally I use .mod for (external) parameter entities, because
>I've got .mod files that might only contain entity declarations so
>they don't meet the criteria of a self contained dtd IMO.

Ah, but it's still valid to name them in your DOCTYPE declaration.  Note 
that I decided NOT TO ADDRESS usage semantics in the filename extension of 
my external parameter entities.  :)

>My EUR 0.02,

Eh, they should just get it over with and standardize on the electron-volt, 
as the basis for a global currency!!  :)


BTW, thanks for your thoughtful response!


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC